On HU
For our Featured Archive Post, Vom Marlowe looked at Billy and Blaze.
Erica Friedman discussed the Defenders and other comics she likes despite themselves.
I talked about empowerment and dicks in Almodovar’s Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!
Ng Suat Tong on the not so transgendered world of Tezuka’s Princess Knight.
Domingos Isabelinho on Tim Gaze and abstract comics.
Kinukitty on angst and cat reaction shots in the yaoi manga I Give to You.
I did a series of reviews through the week on Pop R&B. Beyonce, Ashanti, Mariah, Britney, and more.
Utilitarians Everywhere
At the Atlantic I review Gail Carson Levine’s children’s book of William Carlos Williams adaptations and talk about how contemporary poetry has isolated itself. Plus! A poem by me!
At Splice Today I talk about Andrew Breitbart and new media navel gazing.
Also at Splice I review the crappy new Springsteen album.
Other Links
A nice essay on Habibi and Orientalism.
A comics anthology supporting marriage equality is running a kickstarter campaign.
Qiana Whitted on how where you shelve comics affects how you read them.
Totally unrelated, but I have to say this. Moebius died today. A comics master is gone. Will HU post a retrospective or some sort of obituary writeup…?
Um…maybe? I did ask somebody. However, HU isn’t really a news site; we don’t generally do obits unless someone feels they really have something to say. If one (or more) of our writers wants to do a tribute in the next week/month/year/whatever, that would be great — if not, I’m sure there will be tons of essays elsewhere in the comics press. Check out tcj.com and http://www.comicsreporter.com for starters.
I can’t write about Moebius myself, I fear; I’m not sure I’ve ever read a comic by him.
Maybe I could write something about how mediocre Moebius’ work and the comics subculture really are…
Yup. I’d print that.
I’m sure lots of folks who write for us like him though (I believe Suat does, even.)
That “Art Theory Map” above: ugh!…
Sheesh, everybody’s a critic. I thought it was cute; so sue me.
————————–
Domingos Isabelinho says:
Maybe I could write something about how mediocre Moebius’ work and the comics subculture really are…
……………
That “Art Theory Map” above: ugh!…
————————–
Of all the Domingos Isabelinhos in the world, you are the Domingos Isabelinhoest!
Of course I am. All the others don’t give a damn about comics. Sometimes I think that they’re right and I’m wrong.
The comics subculture is rather mediocre, isn’t it.
Domingos: No, you’re right. You’ve introduced me to a lot of great comics.
Thanks, Derik!
Domingos, just out of curiosity, what do you consider a good comic and why?
Anyway, some thoughts…
Domingos is right about the art theory map. Look at it for <5 seconds and you might think: "What a fun idea!". That's when you actually start to make sense of what events they've chosen to include. So "cute" is right. It has the intellectual qualities of a stuffed toy.
He's wrong about Moebius though. The guy had at least one good (and important) comic in him. And no, I'm not talking about Blueberry.
Moebius “mediocre”? I prefer his own coloring and his more, let’s say aggressive works, but I can’t imagine how you see him as run of the mill. That’s absurd. Hard to imagine who meets your high standards.
Moebius couldn’t write to save his life, so he chose commercial mediocre writers like Charlier and Jodorowsky to work with (I wonder why?). Working alone he was eye candy with a pint of new age bullshit. He was a great craftsman, but that’s not art with a capital A in my book.
If you want to know who meets my standards, here they are. People like Alberto Breccia and Guido Buzzelli…
I see Domingos beat me to it! I was about to suggest the reason he found Moebius “mediocre” was his attitude — as I recalled — that without fine writing, it didn’t matter how skilled the art was in comics…
A 2011 article/interview with Moebius:
http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/04/02/moebius-on-his-art-fading-eyesight-and-legend-i-am-like-a-unicorn/
Moebius costume designs and storyboards for an unproduced version of Dune: http://www.duneinfo.com/unseen/moebius/
A massive archive of Moebius work: http://theairtightgarage.tumblr.com/archive
I can agree that Moebius wasn’t as accomplished a writer as an artist….few are. Either skill takes a lifetime to master. He did a few stories I’ll always love, though. But his art was not mediocre even when he was only drawing the damn crystals.
And I’ll turn Mike’s statement around to say that in comics, without fine art, it also doesn’t matter how skilled the writing is. It takes both.
Of course even Moebius couldn’t make something of nothing, which is why his Silver Surfer with S. Lee was such a waste of his talents. And yes, Charlier wasn’t very interesting and Jododrowki, um…I did enjoy Madwoman.
Domingos, I’m actually surprised you like some of these guys(Ware, Barks, Panter), yet consider Moebius mediocre.
By the way, I was wondering what you find in Tsuge and Tatsumi’s work that you don’t find in Tezuka’s.
That’s just it, James: eye candy is mediocre to me.
AJA: I like some of Barks’ stories, not the whole 500; Panter is annoyingly “mass art gone awry” and nothing more sometimes, I’ll give you that. Ware is great, period. Tsuge is on another level entirely, he must be the best cartoonist ever. I like Tsuge in Tatsumi. I never read “adult comics” Tezuka. “Children comics” Tezuka does nothing for me, of course…
By the way, I put “Cauchemar Blanc” by Moebius in my canon. According to my favorite comics critic, Bruno Lecigne, that’s a very important story in the history of comics. _The Airtight Garage_ was an interesting experiment, but nothing else…
Domingos: Your list shows some pretty eccentric taste…it has White Nightmare, an effective piece which Moebius wrote early on, and Approaching Centuri which has Druillet all over it. I don’t see how Moebius is mediocre then since he makes your list twice, once for his own story. Hmmm, Tardi gets quite a high ranking. You share that tast with Spiegelman. You include R. Crumb, because he drew a few Pekar stories? I could care less about Crumb or Pekar. You like Chester’s wanking stories!? Hugo Pratt makes it only for his collaboration with Osterheld? Hard to say anything about that and so much of what you like isn’t translated or otherwise available here. Okay, well, yes, eye candy isn’t enough. It seems to me that if nothing else, you understand the value of collaboration in a form that demands equal investment in both story and art, despite that some privilege the “writing,” ignoring that in comics a good deal of the writing is done IN the art.
Moebius was actually a very good writer. His play with the French language is unique, on a par with his play with drawing.
Dismissing beautiful art in a visual medium as “eye candy” is facile cliché.
“Children comics” Tezuka does nothing for me, of course…”
I agree that Tezuka “Children comics” are mediocre, but I think there is a certain value in some of his mature works. Although, some of his translated comics for adults can be quite terrible at times.
“Ware is great, period.”
I like Ware to an extent. He does this thing where he switches to tiny panels that knocks me out of the story sometimes. Also, sometimes when he does does the tiny panel thing, I’m not sure what is the next panel. If I had one of his books on hand, I could locate an example. He is original in his visual storytelling while most comics artists don’t even let the art talk, so I’ll give him that.
“Cauchemar blanc” opened a path at the time that Moebius did not pursue, unfortunately. _Métal Hurlant_’s facile sci-fi is a lot more commercial of course. If you check out what I said above you’ll see that I was careful enough to write “how mediocre Moebius’ work […] is” not just “how mediocre Moebius is.”
Pekar was a pioneer of a much needed quiet and adult approach to comics. He did what Moebius did in “Cauchemar…” with a difference: he went all the way therough that path. I also don’t know why you write the following: “I could care less about Crumb or Pekar.” So what? What am I supposed to think? Something like “oh, ok!, since you don’t care about them I agree that they’re trash,” or something of the sort? Why should I care that you don’t care?
Saying that Chester Brown’s _The Playboy_ and _Fuck_ are “wanking stories” can only mean two things: 1) your reading abilities are somewhat wanting; 2) you’re reacting like a spiteful fan of Moebius (here’re
some of my thoughts on the subject). This is far from being the whole story, of course. Most of it, in _Fuck_ escpecially, is about repressing one’s feelings. I wrote about that too, but not on the Internet.
Hugo Pratt couldn’t write either so, he appeared in Europe after ten years in Argentina working with Oesterheld. He just mimicked the master’s style, but without the master’s talent. He did worse though: he was dishonest publishing the team’s stories in Europe without creditting Oesterheld.
I’m not one of those who ignore that drawings are the story too. When I say that Moebius did eye candy I just mean that his stories are shallow.
AB: I don’t doubt that Moebius was great with the French language. That’s not enough to be a great writer though.
Sooo…we seem to be doing okay so far in not getting too flamey, but let’s not edge any closer to the line, please? Thanks all.
Those who are Moebius fans might want to read Nate Atkinson’s piece about having Moebius in his living room.
Obviously my taste isn’t yours but that’s the rub with establishing canons. The real point is that the state of comics to date is such that even one significant story can land one in the canon. A lifetime of great effort on visual presentation is not enough, nor is writing great scripts drawn by disengaged artists. The work in question must be great of itself in all its aspects.
I understand your concern, Noah, but there’s no reason to worry, methinks.
My “canon” is kind of a joke. A canon is a collective construct, so, there’s not such a thing as a personal canon.
The problem with comics is that it is an extremely difficult art form to master. Plus, as any other artist, the comics artist needs to have something to say about the world we live in. Good science fiction (since Moebius, with or without Jodorowsky, is a bad example of such) is never about other worlds or the future.
“Good science fiction… is never about other worlds or the future.”
I agree with that. That’s the difference between someone like Bradbury and someone like Gernsback.
Nah, that’s a load of crap. Good SF (in literature and movies etc.) is not limited by such constraints.
I agree but I don’t see that comics are difficult to master as a bad thing. It does make for a relatively small pile of good stuff, which saves on shelf space.
Suat: I suppose that you call avoiding escapism (in a galaxy far, far, away… in a lost world… etc… etc…), clichéd plots (melodrama and soap opera and more melodrama and apace opera, etc…), cardboard characters (heroes and villains, dangerous vamps, etc…), constraints, then?
Plus: you know that I was talking about subtext, right?…
I agree with Suat, I think. I don’t think talking about the future or other worlds is necessarily escapist or less serious than talking about now. I understand what you’re saying about subtext, and obviously in some sense you can’t talk about anything *but* now…still, sci-fi is about the future in a way that realist fiction isn’t, subtext or not, and I don’t think that’s necessarily a weakness.
Nope, I agree with most or all of that but think of all the good SF that is about “other worlds or the future” – stuff by PKD, Gene Wolfe’s The Book of the New Sun & The Fifth Head of Cerberus etc. Some people might put Neuromancer, Dune, Brave New World, Solaris on a good SF list. Caro likes Dhalgren. Noah likes Ursula K. Le Guin and C.S. Lewis’ stuff.
But maybe Noah is right about where you’re coming from. It’s about “now”.
———————–
James says:
Domingos: Your list shows some pretty eccentric taste…it has White Nightmare, an effective piece which Moebius wrote early on…
————————
I’d thought yesterday of recommending “White Nightmare” to Domingos, as an antidote to the stereotypical image of Moebius’ work; thought it was something he’d appreciate…
————————-
AB says:
Dismissing beautiful art in a visual medium as “eye candy” is facile cliché.
————————-
Indeed! Though, fond as I am of culinary metaphors, it’s worth considering the qualities of candy, and why art that shares those is deserving of being perceived negatively.
Candy (in general) is unsophisticated in its appeal; overwhelmingly sweet, thus easily appreciated by even the primitive palates of children. It’s also — unlike food — pretty damn devoid of nutritional substance, often even “bad for you.”
Thus, here’s someone who eminently qualifies:
http://officialbadartmuseumofart.com/wp-content/uploads/thomas_kinkade_oil_painting.jpg
http://www.free-desktop-backgrounds.net/free-desktop-wallpapers-backgrounds/free-hd-desktop-wallpapers-backgrounds/450411810.jpg
Technical ability aside, this sure shares the shallow appeal to tastes of candy…
With Moebius, though, there is in his art if not great complexity, certainly more substance, aesthetically-nourishing factors. Satiric wit; remarkably imaginative inventiveness in “world-building,” extending to architecture, costuming, vehicles, creatures and cultures; lucidly effective comics narrative; powerful organic abstractions — see http://abstractcomics.blogspot.com/2012/02/moebius-from-chaos-1991.html — which belong in the camp of Fuchs, Venosa, Giger and other “fantastic realists”…
In other words, there is eye-appeal there, but it’s not shallow, brainless eye-appeal.
“Candy (in general) is unsophisticated in its appeal; overwhelmingly sweet, thus easily appreciated by even the primitive palates of children. It’s also — unlike food — pretty damn devoid of nutritional substance, often even “bad for you.”
This is true if you limit your definition of candy to Snickers bars and jelly beans, but there’s some seriously artful candy out there with value that has nothing to do with nutrition.
This gets at an aspect of the “eye candy” metaphor that leaves a (ahem) bad taste in my mouth. Namely, that it implies that good art is substantial in the way that food can be substantial, or that we nourish our minds in the same we nourish our bodies.
Like all metaphors it serves a purpose, highlighting the need for art that is edifying and intellectually challenging. And like all metaphors, it obscures something. Namely, by accenting what art does it elides what its audience does with it. Affect, evocation, and a slew of other outcomes between text and audience drop out of the conversation.
————————-
Nate says:
“Candy (in general) is unsophisticated in its appeal…”
This is true if you limit your definition of candy to Snickers bars and jelly beans, but there’s some seriously artful candy out there with value that has nothing to do with nutrition.
————————-
Sure; hence the “in general” caveat. I’m a devoted Milky Way man m’self, but even a famous niche candy like the Harry Potter-inspired Bertie Bott’s Every Flavor Beans offer a more…complex experience.
————————-
This gets at an aspect of the “eye candy” metaphor that leaves a (ahem) bad taste in my mouth. Namely, that it implies that good art is substantial in the way that food can be substantial, or that we nourish our minds in the same we nourish our bodies.
Like all metaphors it serves a purpose, highlighting the need for art that is edifying and intellectually challenging…
————————–
Oh, but I think that art need not simply be “edifying and intellectually challenging” — pretty stodgy, conservative definitions of what would be “good” — in order to provide aesthetic “nourishment.”
With food, the bulk of what we eat is excreted, but part literally becomes part of ourselves, even if as humble fat-deposits. I’d consider art which “nourishes” to be that which does not “go in one ear and out the other,” is not forgettable and disposable, but becomes part of our aesthetic worldview and attitudes, altering the way we see/experience some things. Even humble art with few pretensions — i.e., gaudy midway poster art — can create these effects…